Post navigation

Ray Comfort’s Anti-Abortion Video “180”

“A shocking, award-winning documentary!” “Changing the heart of a nation.” “33 minutes that will rock your world.” Ray Comfort lavishes his work with superlatives, but does it hold up?

I watched 180 so that you won’t have to. Spoiler alert: didn’t rock my world.

Motives are immediately suspect when the video opens with Hitler and Nazi rallies. Right out of the gate, Godwin’s Law is in force, and Comfort makes clear that you’re either on his side or giving Hitler back rubs.

With that dichotomy clear, Comfort interviews people hanging out on a sunny day at some Los Angeles beach. He begins by asking, “Who was Hitler?” The snippets introducing us to the (typically) 20-somethings who we’ll see throughout the video all show them clueless in response. If it was unclear before, it’s now obvious that he cherry picked only those interviews that gave him what he wanted. This is a poor foundation on which to show us a half-dozen people at the end who are convinced by his message. (Okay, Ray, but out of how many?)

We connect the present with Hitler through a long interview with a young American neo-Nazi with a tall blue Mohawk and a dashed “Cut here” tattoo across his throat. And then, videos of concentration camp aftermath.

Comfort primes his interviewees with moral puzzles such as “Would you shoot Hitler if you could go back in time and do so?” or “Would you kill Jews if told that, if you didn’t, you would be killed and someone else would do the job?”

About a third of the way in, the conversation finally turns to abortion. The use of Hitler and the Holocaust is justified when Comfort declares abortion to be the American holocaust, with killing fetuses equivalent to killing Jews. His arguments are nothing new to many of us, but they were to this crowd:

Finish this sentence: “It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when …”

What if a construction worker was about to blow up a building but wasn’t sure if there was a person in there or not. If we’re not sure, we should always err on the side of life, right?

Next, he brings up the sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” In the first place, he’s done nothing to show that there is a god behind these commandments and that it has any more supernatural warrant than “Use the Force, Luke!” Additionally, the commandment is usually translated as “thou shalt not murder.” If the correct word is “kill,” I need to see Comfort walking the walk by campaigning against capital punishment and war. And if it’s an undefined “murder,” what is murder? The commandment becomes a tautology: Thou shalt not do what is forbidden.

Granted, but how is this helpful?

Our interviewees seem a little off balance with a camera in their faces and are apparently not that sharp to begin with given their widespread ignorance of Hitler. Ray picks snippets that give him what he wants to hear, that killing fetuses is equivalent to killing Jews.

The lesson is that you can make an effective emotional pro-life argument to people who haven’t thought much about the issue. But people who change their minds so easily (Comfort brags about how quickly they changed) aren’t well established in their new position. How many of these, after thinking about these ideas at leisure and discussing it with friends, are still in Comfort’s camp today?

There’s a fundamental confusion in his interviewees, and Comfort is not motivated to correct it. There’s a big difference between “Abortion is wrong for me” and “Abortion is wrong for everyone, and we must impose that on society.” People give him the former, but he hopes we’ll take away the latter.

We’re two thirds through the video now and are just hoping to get out with our sanity intact, but Comfort has saved the best for last. The anti-abortion argument is dropped, and he falls back to his old favorite, the Ten Commandments challenge. (One reviewer suggested that Comfort’s compulsive use of this argument is his personal form of Tourette’s.) This is where Comfort ticks off the commandments: Have you ever lied? Stolen? Looked on someone with lust?

He concludes: “By your own admission, you’re a lying, thieving, blaspheming fornicator and must face God on Judgment Day™. How do you think God should judge you?” Again, of course, he ignores that we haven’t established the existence of God or the afterlife.

I did applaud one aspect of the movie, the text at the end that read, “We strongly condemn the use of any violence in connection with protesting abortion.” At least, I applauded this until I realized that this was probably a legal demand since Comfort had pushed his interviewees to consider shooting Hitler early in the documentary.

Given Ray Comfort’s easy success with emotional appeals, what if someone did a rebuttal video? It could open with stories of illegal and dangerous back-alley abortion clinics. Then talk about Americans rejecting oppressive government—“the land of the free,” “no taxation without representation,” and all that. Paint a picture of medieval Europe with the heavy hand of the church on every aspect of life for the poor peasant. Overlay some stirring patriotic music on waving flags and eagles.

Suppose a building were on fire, and you could save either a five-year-old child or ten frozen embryos. Which would you pick? If you picked the child, what does that say about the argument that equates embryos with babies?

If you’ve seen anti-abortion videos or posters, you may have seen the bloody results of late-term abortions. Why do you suppose they showed you that rather than a woman swallowing an emergency contraceptive (“morning after”) pill? Do you suppose they really think that it’s a “baby” all the way back to that single cell?

Given that half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, do you suppose that God has much of a concern about abortion?

A week-old human blastocyst has fewer cells than the brain of a fly. Does it make sense to equate that with a one trillion-cell newborn? The newborn has eyes, ears, legs, arms, a brain and a nervous system, a heart and a circulatory system—in fact, all the components of the human body that you do—while the blastocyst has just 100 undifferentiated cells. Does it make sense to equate them?

30 thoughts on “Ray Comfort’s Anti-Abortion Video “180””

First of all, I agree that if Comfort’s video was aiming to be a rigorous survey of what people thought about the issue then it is methodologically suspect. (Just like Michael Moore’s documentaries). But (again just like Michael Moore’s documentaries) it makes for a very well delivered rhetorical argument (and I’m using rhetorical in a descriptive, not a pejorative sense).

You can quote Godwin’s Law all you like, but Godwin’s Law says absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of any claim. Actually I really don’t see the point of quoting Godwin’s Law, unless you think it is going to embarrass people into not mentioning Hitler and the Nazis.

The real question that needs to be asked is whether it is a fair comparison, and as Eric Metaxas said, alluding to both the Atlantic slave trade and Nazi Germany, “Who do we say is not fully human today?”

Actually I really don’t see the point of quoting Godwin’s Law, unless you think it is going to embarrass people into not mentioning Hitler and the Nazis.

It’s easy for a conversation to escalate to the point where someone says, “Well you’re a Nazi then!” Most of it is invalid, I’m guessing, which is why the Nazi reference has become a potential third rail. People are now aware that it can be a cheap shot. If the Nazi similarity is actually valid, you would do well to take pains to avoid the Godwin accusation by laying out a clear argument. Comfort is well within the Godwin Zone as he uses the Hitler comparison for emotional reasons. If there’s a good Hitler/abortion comparison, Comfort did a poor job making it.

The real question that needs to be asked is whether it is a fair comparison, and as Eric Metaxas said, alluding to both the Atlantic slave trade and Nazi Germany, “Who do we say is not fully human today?”

I use the word “person,” not “human.” Saying that killing a concentration camp victim is identical to killing a single cell makes no sense to me, as I’ve said before.

Using Godwin’s Law can be as much of a cheap shot as using Nazis/Hitler in an argument.

Although I don’t think the 180 film can be accused of Godwin’s Law as a large part of it is pointing out that some people are simply not aware of the role of Hitler and the Nazis in history (as shocking as it this may seem to us) which would render Godwin’s Law unnecessary. Hey, why resort to Godwin’s Law when a simple lack of education will do the trick for you 🙂

If you use the person, what do you take that word to mean?

And while you say that a single-cell is not fully a person, at what stage are the majority of abortions conducted? It should not be a surprise that someone is generally aware of their pregnancy before an abortion is conducted. Although the percentage of abortions performed after 12 weeks is generally low in the west, the percentage performed between 8 weeks (when all organs have been formed) and 12 weeks is anywhere from 30% up depending on where you get your statistics. And the percentage performed before four weeks is even lower than that performed after 12 weeks.

If you are going to refer to single-cells to argue against ful-term abortions then don’t be surprised if you generate a lot more heat than light. The fact of the matter is that where most abortions are happening is during a two-month period at the beginning of which, there is not a strong resemblance to a baby, and at the end of which there is.

Now, if you want to go down the route of deciding where to draw the line (Do half-Jews count? What about quarter-Jews? Is it a person by 6 weeks? What about 8 weeks?) then that is your prerogative, but surely you can see that the parallel, right?

Although the percentage of abortions performed after 12 weeks is generally low in the west, the percentage performed between 8 weeks (when all organs have been formed) and 12 weeks is anywhere from 30% up depending on where you get your statistics.

So you’re saying that the moral issue becomes greater as time goes on? That’s all I’ve been saying.

Now, if you want to go down the route of deciding where to draw the line (Do half-Jews count? What about quarter-Jews? Is it a person by 6 weeks? What about 8 weeks?) then that is your prerogative, but surely you can see that the parallel, right?

No. Jews are persons, just like quarter-Jews. On the personhood spectrum, they’re all at the Person end. They can’t be distinguished. A single cell and a newborn, by contrast, can be.

The moral issue doesn’t become greater as time goes one, but it does become more clear. If we set aside the issue of danger to the mother’s life – in my view, abortion is justifiable to save the mother’s life, then abortions post-12 weeks, from the evidence of the fetal development are extremely difficult to justify by any rationale.

This doesn’t mean that abortions pre-12 weeks are justifiable, just that there are arguments that can be (and are) made that must be considered. Still, in light of this I do not believe these arguments in favour of abortion to be sufficient. But it is not such a clear-cut case as post-12 weeks.

Re half-Jews and quarter-Jews, perhaps if you ask yourself the question of whether they are German, you might find the comparison easier. Because in Nazi Germany, your German-ness was what was important. To not be Aryan was to be inferior, sub-human, not entitled to the rights that others were, even (as we all know) the right to live.

In your case, your argument is that biological development determines whether someone is a person or not, and likewise, whether they are inferior, sub-personal, and entitled to the rights that others are, even the right to live.

The moral issue doesn’t become greater as time goes one, but it does become more clear.

I don’t see why we’re not saying the same thing.

Still, in light of this I do not believe these arguments in favour of abortion to be sufficient. But it is not such a clear-cut case as post-12 weeks.

Sounds like your version of the spectrum argument.

You’re certainly entitled to conclude that abortion is wrong in your eyes. It’s when that’s imposed on everyone by law that I have a problem.

Re half-Jews and quarter-Jews, perhaps if you ask yourself the question of whether they are German, you might find the comparison easier.

OK–let’s imagine that someone can be full Jew or quarter Jew; they can be full German or quarter German.

I’m still not seeing the equivalence that you imagine. Someone can argue whatever the heck he wants, of course, but you seem to imagine that I’m compelled to agree with those who would kill Jews or non-Germans or something.

Bob,
I’m saying that abortion at 20 weeks is not more wrong than abortion at 6 weeks. What I am saying is that we can be more sure that abortion at 20 weeks is wrong than at 6 weeks. If you want to use your spectrum analogy, you can say that every day in a pregnancy our confidence in the wrongness of aborting that pregnancy increases. But this does not make an abortion early in the pregnancy right, any more than it makes anyone right who unwisely engages in wrong activity in the mistaken belief that it was right (slavery, anti-semitism, etc)

The comparison to Jews and Germans is pointing out that if you have one category that has basic rights and another that does not, the intermediate categories become problematic. It helps to have a clear defining boundary which can be drawn between person/non-person, because otherwise we run the risk of denying basic rights to people who obviously should have them.

The two most intuitive boundary lines would obviously be conception and birth. Birth is problematic due to the fact that we know that many fetuses are indistinguishable from babies, especially given the cases of premature births. I believe that an argument can be made for drawing a boundary at the development of the nervous system, but practically it is problematic as there is no non-invasive test for whether the nervous system has been formed. Surely, we must err on the side of caution, and not risk killing innocent people and euphemising it as policy. This is exactly what happened with the Jews in Nazi Germany.

And regarding your comment that you’re happy for me to have this view but not for it to be imposed on others by law. Would you say such a thing about the Holocaust? Because if I am right and these fetuses are in fact persons, then surely it is my duty to struggle for their rights, is it not?

every day in a pregnancy our confidence in the wrongness of aborting that pregnancy increases.

This seems an odd distinction to make. You’re saying that we know it’s wrong on day 1 and we know it’s wrong on day 50, but we’re more confident in the wrongness of day 50? Why not just say “it’s more wrong on day 50”?

But we are at least saying something similar. Given that spectrum, do you think it’s correct of society to impose on everyone a ban on abortion, as the conservatives in the US want?

If you’re simply saying, “Hey, from my standpoint, I say it’s wrong from start to finish,” then I’m cool with that. It’s the imposition as law on others (the denial of choice) that’s the problem.

(But perhaps you answered this in your last comment.)

The comparison to Jews and Germans is pointing out that if you have one category that has basic rights and another that does not, the intermediate categories become problematic.

This is like saying that blue and green are very different colors and finding the midpoint is tricky. I agree. But it’s still the case that blue and green (the two extremes) are different.

we run the risk of denying basic rights to people who obviously should have them.

Pregnant women have an instinctive maternal instinct that is an excellent guide. That’s our moral guide in this gray area. Society needs to draw the line at where abortion truly is inexcusable and let the woman decide before that point.

As one commenter here said, “if abortion really were murder, it would come as an instinctive reaction from women. It would come with such force that men would be confused by the average woman’s revulsion towards abortion.”

Would you say such a thing about the Holocaust?

Obviously not. Along the development spectrum that I’ve laid out, Jews, Russians, Poles, homosexuals, and everyone else that was killed during the Holocaust were all at the “person” end of the spectrum. Anyone justifying the Holocaust would be using a different spectrum (if any at all), one that I don’t accept.

Bob,
I’m going to leave this thread with one last point. If (and I understand you may not agree with this ‘if’) abortion really is murder, ie it really is the killing of a person, then surely those who recognize this have a duty as great as those who campaigned against the slave trade, Nazi Germany, etc.

If it really is as they say, then they certainly should not treat it as a private issue, any more than someone in Nazi Germany who could see the evil of the treatment of the Jews could treat someone’s views on it as a private matter, and not tried to oppose what was happening.

I watched this over the weekend, (coincidentally?) before reading this post, and while I agree with your criticism of the methodology, Comfort makes no claim to being statistically significant. The fact he could find as many folks ignorant of Hitler as he did was disturbing in itself, regardless of the absolute numbers.

But I was thinking of a different aspect of the movie to ask you. Given your commitment to the spectrum argument, (which I totally disagree with but don’t want to re-open here—we’ve been there done that and disagree…) I don’t expect you to accept the full weight of Comfort’s point. But in regard to the movie as a whole, I have two questions:

1) Consider this. When Comfort asked about whether you would kill Hitler when he was an infant if you ABSOLUTELY KNEW the horror his life would bring about, would you do it?
Question: Would killing THAT child be justified?

2) Regarding your spectrum argument, you raised several stages of development:
>Single Cell (no such thing, as a fertilized egg splits before it is considered a product of conception, but we can go to two cells…)
>Fertilized eggs that are not implanted, but are spontaneously (in your words) aborted.
Note: I don’t think these can be considered abortions, because for the purposes of THIS discussion, we are talking about choices we make regarding abortion, right? In a fallen world, there is a certain amount of imperfection of the embryo and the female reproductive system, and lots of other variables that may account for failure to implant. But this is a red herring in the topic at hand.
>Frozen embryos
>A week-old blastocyst with 100 cells or so
>Sliced up fully formed babies with identifiable body parts
>The newborn with “The newborn has eyes, ears, legs, arms, a brain and a nervous system, a heart and a circulatory system—in fact, all the components of the human body”
One you didn’t mention—the viable baby identical to the one above, but located in the womb instead of outside.
Question: Which of these is it OK to terminate? You have dodged this question before. But you are proposing a policy on abortion, and you need to step up to the plate and tell us what point you think is OK in your moral ethic to terminate.

I’d love to have a genuine conversation with you on these two points. Am I optimistic you will participate? Perhaps. But if Godwin’s law holds true, you were the first one to introduce Nazis into a conversation a couple of days ago, so perhaps not. Surprise me!

The fact he could find as many folks ignorant of Hitler as he did was disturbing in itself

Agreed. But it does suggest that he’s selecting dummkopfs to evaluate his arguments.

Given your commitment to the spectrum argument

Everyone sees the difference between a newborn and a cell. The pushback is usually in giving a name to what the baby has and the cell doesn’t.

1) Consider this. When Comfort asked about whether you would kill Hitler when he was an infant if you ABSOLUTELY KNEW the horror his life would bring about, would you do it?
Question: Would killing THAT child be justified?

There are lots of side questions that one could explore, but let’s dismiss with those by replacing Hitler with “the most harmful person of the 20th century.” Yes, I think that would be justified.

You have dodged this question before.

And will do so now. I have no competence here worth sharing. You may know that I’m not an obstetrician or a professional ethicist. My opinion is of little weight. Why ask me except to change the subject?

If you don’t want to talk about the spectrum argument–the primary idea that I’m sharing here–or specifics of Comfort’s video, that’s fine. Proposing an age or a level of development takes us in a completely different direction, one that I have no interest in going in. You might as well turn the conversation to economic policy–something that I am also uninterested in and have no particular competence to share.

We are making progress! You only dodged one of the two questions I posed!

Now—regarding question one. Suppose you had PERFECT foreknowledge of events, to the extent that you know NO members of a group such as the ones God authorized Israel to destroy would EVER experience anything other than tyranny, and would never move beyond brutality to their own (sacrificing children) and their neighbors (visiting warfare and destruction on them as well.) Remember, this is perfect foreknowledge. Would you then be justified in choosing to terminate the entire group of people to prevent any others being sentenced to living out this horrific lifestyle and its consequences?

This is the answer to your questions about why God did what He did in the Old Testament. It isn’t a pretty picture, nor one mankind could ever decide to emulate—we don’t have perfect foreknowledge, and God hasn’t spoken to us about any terminations to my knowledge in modern times. Hence, Hitler was WRONG to do what he did and try to exterminate a given group. There may have been situations in the Old Testament where God was JUSTIFIED to do what He did by His perfect foreknowledge.

Regarding question two, unless you are going to quantify your answer as to when it is OK to terminate a baby, you are simply an intellectual elite theorist or an armchair quarterback. Real morality has logical implications. Get back to me when you are ready to play in the big leagues.

You need to stop criticizing those who think through their morality to logical end policy ramifications until you are willing to do the same. Until then you are in the same category as President Obama, who claimed these decisions were above his pay grade, but then enacted policies with real life (actually real death) implications for millions of viable babies.

Real life is harder than a blog. Get in the game. What’s your call? Quit hiding behind intellectually unsatisfying excuses.

We are making progress! You only dodged one of the two questions I posed!

You have the patience of a saint to converse with someone who, without any transcendental justification of knowledge, is drifting in the intellectual sea like flotsam.

Would you then be justified in choosing to terminate the entire group of people to prevent any others being sentenced to living out this horrific lifestyle and its consequences?

Sure. But why ask a hypothetical question that is so out of touch with reality? What evidence do we have that the millions of Canaanites were, to a man, irredeemably heartless? And the children, too? You raise a Canaanite child in a loving Jewish home, and the kid turns out to model his environment.

In that case, here’s my response. We have an ancient story about a people who killed lots of other people. They justified this by saying that their god commanded them (so therefore it was justified). This removes from them the stain of being immoral savages. This story looks like stories other peoples have told about themselves. Looks like this is just one more. This gives us a satisfactory natural explanation. Why grope for a supernatural one (except to satisfy a preconception)?

This is the answer to your questions about why God did what He did in the Old Testament. It isn’t a pretty picture

Particularly since an omnipotent god could’ve made it so. He could’ve made the Canaanite women sterile 50 years prior. Problem solved.

Or teleported them to another part of the world. Or removed them from existence. But no, God’s palette of options includes pretty much what ordinary rulers of the time would have–genocide. And if you don’t like that, he also has genocide.

Makes God look simply like a rationalization for the Israelites.

Regarding question two, unless you are going to quantify your answer as to when it is OK to terminate a baby, you are simply an intellectual elite theorist or an armchair quarterback.

Well, sure. That … or what I said I was.

you are in the same category as President Obama, who claimed these decisions were above his pay grade, but then enacted policies with real life (actually real death) implications for millions of viable babies.

All those involved in education must have a clear and unified idea of the educational tasks before them. The four iron pillars of the national school and educational system are: race, military training, leadership, and religion!

Religion

Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow God’s ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, but rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system. We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good example.

Race, military training, leadership, religion! These are the four unshakable foundations of the new German National Socialist education!

Does the above Nazi literature sound atheistic at all? Does the cry for religion in public education sound familiar?

In a speech made 24 October 1933, Hitler claimed to have “undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”[85] And in a speech made during the negotiations for the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933, Hitler argued against secular schools, stating: “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”[86] One of the groups closed down by the Nazi regime was the German Freethinkers League. One of its chairmen, Max Sievers, was beheaded by the Nazis on January 17, 1944 for treason. According to a 1945 U.S. Office of Strategic Services report, the Nazis “abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-Church propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular (weltliche) schools in which no religious instruction was given and reestablished religious instruction in professional and vocation schools. All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden.”

Does closing down the Freethinkers League and stamping out the atheistic movement sound atheistic at all? Again, does the cry for religion in public education sound familiar?

Although Ray Comfort won’t say it himself, he shows clips in the movie where people say things like, “Hitler brainwashed the Germans into believing the Jews were evil.” Since Ray Comfort is so interested in not forgeting history, why doesn’t Ray correct this kid and teach him that anti-Semetism was around long before Hitler and the Nazis?

If you understand who the Nazis chief idealogical rivals were in Germany, and the relationship of those rivals to atheism, then Nazi opposition to atheism becomes more clear.

Nowadays, publicly identifying as an atheist will not even draw accusations of being a communist. In Europe (and America) in the 30s, the two were as close as environmentalist and Greenpeace member are to us today.

Call Hitler and the Nazis whatever you want to Ray Comfort… just don’t call them atheists.

As I have said many times. There are two people’s in the human race those with “saving faith” ( a gift from the Sovereign Triune God) who’s savior is God . And those with saving faith are the “children” of God and God is their father. The rest of mankind, the unregenerate ( atheist, agnostics, Muslims, secular humanist , Buddhist, Jews, JW’s etc.) who’s father is Satan. Unbelievers!

So you see Retro you may like to put people in groups, but there are only two groups. God’s elect and the rest. So it does not matter where you are trying to put Hitler, or Stalin, or Gandhi. All are of the devil and are God haters. We have believers and unbelievers, that’s it! And I am sure this will be another thing you just hate about this God you do not believe in. Have you ever asked yourself why you are so angry at something you do not believe in?

Anti-semitism is actually a type of racism. Therefore, while we search for the roots of – and remedy for – anti-semitism, we have to refer to the concept of racism.

Racism is the most important component of fascist ideology, which was responsible for the greatest genocides, massacres and wars of the 20th century. When we look at Nazi ideology, in particular, we see that racism is the main constituent of fascism. The Nazis set out with the dream of making the German race, which they regarded as the superior race, dominant all over the world, and tried to eradicate other races, and particularly the Jews, to that end. As Wilhelm Reich put it, “The race theory is German fascism’s theoretical axis.” [1]

The root of this theoretical axis is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Racism and Darwinism

The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that “God created all people equal” by “Darwinism”. By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.

In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such ‘official’ founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:

Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought… The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, …were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones… The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the ‘fittest’ who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so.

The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact. Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best… It was.. Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further… Hitler himself admired the author (Chamberlain) sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927. [2]

The evolutionist German biologist Ernst Haeckel is one of the most important of Nazism’s spiritual fathers. Haeckel brought Darwin’s theory to Germany, and prepared it as a program ready for the Nazis. From racists such as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain Hitler took over a politically-centred racism, and a biological one from Haeckel. Careful inspection will reveal that the inspiration behind all these racists came from Darwinism.

Nazism’s Race Theory and Social Darwinism

HAECKEL
Ernst Haeckel, introduced Darwinism into Germany and formulated a racist social policy for the Nazis.
Indeed, a heavy Darwinist influence can be seen in all the Nazi ideologues. When this theory, which was given form by Hitler and Alfred Rosenburg is examined, one sees concepts such as ‘natural selection,’ ‘selective mating,’ and ‘the struggle for survival between the races,’ which are repeated dozens of times in Darwin’s The Origin of Species. The name of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf was inspired by Darwin’s principle that life was a constant struggle for survival, and those who emerged victorious survived. In the book Hitler talked of the struggle between the races, and said:

History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself. [3]

That Nazism was influenced by Darwinism is accepted by almost all historians who are expert in the period. The historian Hickman expresses the influence of Darwinism on Hitler in these words.

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [4]

In The Mass Psychology of Fascism Wilhelm Reich describes the Nazi theory of race thus:

Hitler got the idea of the necessity of a perpetual war and conflict among human races from the theories of Darwin.
The race theory proceeds from the presupposition that the exclusive mating of every animal with its own species is an “iron law” in nature. Only exceptional circumstances, such as captivity, are capable of causing a violation of this law and to leading to racial interbreeding. When this occurs, however, nature revenges itself and uses every means at its disposal to oppose such infringements, either by making the bastard sterile or by limiting the fertility of later offspring. In every crossbreeding of two living creatures of different “levels,” the offspring will of necessity represent something intermediate. But nature aims at a higher breeding of life; hence bastardization is contrary to the will of nature. Natural selection also takes place in the daily struggle for survival, in which the weaker, i.e., racially inferior, perish. This is consistent with the “will of nature,” for every improvement and higher breeding would cease if the weak, who are in the majority, could crowd out the strong, who are in the minority. [5]

As we have seen, this biological view that forms the basis of the Nazi’s race theory is undiluted Darwinism. Nonsense such as that nature’s aim is to ’cause superior species to evolve,’ that it uses natural selection to do so, and that the weak are inevitably eliminated are really just a summary of Darwinism.

These evolutionist views, which have no scientific basis and are just a reworking of the superstition of ‘ascribing consciousness to nature,’ existing in animist cultures, finally reached their culmination in the savagery of the Nazis. The theory was put into practice in human societies, again in a manner in conformity with Darwinism. Wilhelm Reich continues:

The National Socialist went on to apply this supposed law in nature to peoples. Their line of reasoning was something as follows: Historical experience teaches that the “intermixing of Aryan blood” with “inferior” peoples always results in the degeneration of the founders of civilization. The level of the superior race is lowered, followed by physical and mental retrogression; this marks the beginning of a progressive “decline.” The North American continent would remain strong, Hitler states, “as long as he [the German inhabitant] does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood,” that is to say, as long as he does not interbreed with non-Germanic peoples. [6]

When Hitler said, ‘Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the dance of apes’ he based that thought on the Darwinist ideas that man had evolved from apes, for which reason some of them still possessed ‘ape status.’ [7]

This logic constitutes the starting point of the horrible massacres they carried out against various races such as Gypsies, Slavs, Russians, and especially the Jews, and the horrible insensitivity they displayed while carrying out these horrendous acts.

Anti-semitic/Social Darwinist Racism In Our Day

This illustration from the 19th century reflects the racist aspirations of its time. A black person is on the same tree with a chimp, a gorilla and an orangutan. This hatred and disdain against colored people were an important element of the Nazi ideology.
Today, many anti-semite and similar racist movements draw their inspiration from Social Darwinism. In the manifesto of one of the most radical racist organizations in the US, the National Alliance, the bases of this doctrine are clearly set out.

The fascist National Alliance organization stresses the difference between it and ‘Semitic beliefs’ (Islam, Christianity and Judaism), and states that they believe only in nature, that they are evolutionists, whereas ‘Semitic beliefs’ are based on faith in God. In the manifesto, the evolutionist logic behind its racist ideology is described:

Our world is hierarchical. Each of us is a member of the Aryan (or European) race, which, like the other races, developed its special characteristics over many thousands of years during which natural selection not only adapted it to its environment but also advanced it along its evolutionary path. Those races which evolved in the more demanding environment of the North, where surviving a winter required planning and self-discipline, advanced more rapidly in the development of the higher mental faculties. [8]

The National Alliance Organization is based in the United States and produces books and magazines in Swedish, French, German, Portuguese and Russian. It is rapidly spreading its Darwinist, neo-pagan ideology. The articles inside the organization’s fascist National Vanguard magazine frequently quote from the works of Darwin and other ideologues of Social Darwinism. One can find similar statements, Darwinist comments, and propaganda defending deviant pagan culture against the divine religions in the publications and web sites of other fascist organizations.

Put briefly, fascist racism which was born with the re-awakening of pagan culture and the theory of naturalistic evolution in the 19th century, continues to grow in the 21st century, based on the same fundamental notions.

Both the eugenical murders, which were propagated by Ernst Haeckel and performed by the Nazis, and the Nazi mass murders of war years had a common philosophical ground: The idea that humans are mere animals and there is a perpetual conflict among their races. Nazis did not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of children for this cruel idea.

Anyway, the Nazi’s rejected evolution. The official Nazi library journal in 1935 listed twelve categories of banned books. One category was: “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.”

The question at hand is: is evolution accurate? This drivel is both wrong and irrelevant to this central question.

Bob S wrote: Read Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies and then tell me this.

I like how what Bob C posted makes it seem as though racism originated with Darwin.

What do you call it when God chooses ONE nation to be His people?

Was it not the racism of the Jews being choosen by God that led to the Jews monotheistic ideology, which was responsible for the genocides and massacres recorded in the Bible?

Did not the Israelites and God set out with the dream of making the Jewish race, which they regarded as the superior race, dominant all over the world, and tried to eradicate other races and religions, and particularly the Caananites, to that end?

By suggesting that the Israelites were specially choosen by God, it provided racism with a theological mask.

Both the murders that God performed Himself by fire, brimstone, flood, and plague, and the Istaelite mass murders of Caanaite Conquest years had a common philosophical ground: The idea that humans are subject to laws of the God of the Jews and there is a perpetual conflict among their religions. The Israelites did not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of children for this cruel idea…

Funny how Retro failed to mention the Darwinian influence on Hitler..Here is a good article

Anti-semitism is actually a type of racism. Therefore, while we search for the roots of – and remedy for – anti-semitism, we have to refer to the concept of racism.

Racism is the most important component of fascist ideology, which was responsible for the greatest genocides, massacres and wars of the 20th century. When we look at Nazi ideology, in particular, we see that racism is the main constituent of fascism. The Nazis set out with the dream of making the German race, which they regarded as the superior race, dominant all over the world, and tried to eradicate other races, and particularly the Jews, to that end. As Wilhelm Reich put it, “The race theory is German fascism’s theoretical axis.” [1]

The root of this theoretical axis is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Racism and Darwinism

The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that “God created all people equal” by “Darwinism”. By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.

In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such ‘official’ founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:

Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought… The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, …were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones… The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the ‘fittest’ who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so.

The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact. Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best… It was.. Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further… Hitler himself admired the author (Chamberlain) sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927. [2]

The evolutionist German biologist Ernst Haeckel is one of the most important of Nazism’s spiritual fathers. Haeckel brought Darwin’s theory to Germany, and prepared it as a program ready for the Nazis. From racists such as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain Hitler took over a politically-centred racism, and a biological one from Haeckel. Careful inspection will reveal that the inspiration behind all these racists came from Darwinism.

Nazism’s Race Theory and Social Darwinism

HAECKEL
Ernst Haeckel, introduced Darwinism into Germany and formulated a racist social policy for the Nazis.
Indeed, a heavy Darwinist influence can be seen in all the Nazi ideologues. When this theory, which was given form by Hitler and Alfred Rosenburg is examined, one sees concepts such as ‘natural selection,’ ‘selective mating,’ and ‘the struggle for survival between the races,’ which are repeated dozens of times in Darwin’s The Origin of Species. The name of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf was inspired by Darwin’s principle that life was a constant struggle for survival, and those who emerged victorious survived. In the book Hitler talked of the struggle between the races, and said:

History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself. [3]

That Nazism was influenced by Darwinism is accepted by almost all historians who are expert in the period. The historian Hickman expresses the influence of Darwinism on Hitler in these words.

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [4]

In The Mass Psychology of Fascism Wilhelm Reich describes the Nazi theory of race thus:

Hitler got the idea of the necessity of a perpetual war and conflict among human races from the theories of Darwin.
The race theory proceeds from the presupposition that the exclusive mating of every animal with its own species is an “iron law” in nature. Only exceptional circumstances, such as captivity, are capable of causing a violation of this law and to leading to racial interbreeding. When this occurs, however, nature revenges itself and uses every means at its disposal to oppose such infringements, either by making the bastard sterile or by limiting the fertility of later offspring. In every crossbreeding of two living creatures of different “levels,” the offspring will of necessity represent something intermediate. But nature aims at a higher breeding of life; hence bastardization is contrary to the will of nature. Natural selection also takes place in the daily struggle for survival, in which the weaker, i.e., racially inferior, perish. This is consistent with the “will of nature,” for every improvement and higher breeding would cease if the weak, who are in the majority, could crowd out the strong, who are in the minority. [5]

As we have seen, this biological view that forms the basis of the Nazi’s race theory is undiluted Darwinism. Nonsense such as that nature’s aim is to ’cause superior species to evolve,’ that it uses natural selection to do so, and that the weak are inevitably eliminated are really just a summary of Darwinism.

These evolutionist views, which have no scientific basis and are just a reworking of the superstition of ‘ascribing consciousness to nature,’ existing in animist cultures, finally reached their culmination in the savagery of the Nazis. The theory was put into practice in human societies, again in a manner in conformity with Darwinism. Wilhelm Reich continues:

The National Socialist went on to apply this supposed law in nature to peoples. Their line of reasoning was something as follows: Historical experience teaches that the “intermixing of Aryan blood” with “inferior” peoples always results in the degeneration of the founders of civilization. The level of the superior race is lowered, followed by physical and mental retrogression; this marks the beginning of a progressive “decline.” The North American continent would remain strong, Hitler states, “as long as he [the German inhabitant] does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood,” that is to say, as long as he does not interbreed with non-Germanic peoples. [6]

When Hitler said, ‘Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the dance of apes’ he based that thought on the Darwinist ideas that man had evolved from apes, for which reason some of them still possessed ‘ape status.’ [7]

This logic constitutes the starting point of the horrible massacres they carried out against various races such as Gypsies, Slavs, Russians, and especially the Jews, and the horrible insensitivity they displayed while carrying out these horrendous acts.

Anti-semitic/Social Darwinist Racism In Our Day

This illustration from the 19th century reflects the racist aspirations of its time. A black person is on the same tree with a chimp, a gorilla and an orangutan. This hatred and disdain against colored people were an important element of the Nazi ideology.
Today, many anti-semite and similar racist movements draw their inspiration from Social Darwinism. In the manifesto of one of the most radical racist organizations in the US, the National Alliance, the bases of this doctrine are clearly set out.

The fascist National Alliance organization stresses the difference between it and ‘Semitic beliefs’ (Islam, Christianity and Judaism), and states that they believe only in nature, that they are evolutionists, whereas ‘Semitic beliefs’ are based on faith in God. In the manifesto, the evolutionist logic behind its racist ideology is described:

Our world is hierarchical. Each of us is a member of the Aryan (or European) race, which, like the other races, developed its special characteristics over many thousands of years during which natural selection not only adapted it to its environment but also advanced it along its evolutionary path. Those races which evolved in the more demanding environment of the North, where surviving a winter required planning and self-discipline, advanced more rapidly in the development of the higher mental faculties. [8]

The National Alliance Organization is based in the United States and produces books and magazines in Swedish, French, German, Portuguese and Russian. It is rapidly spreading its Darwinist, neo-pagan ideology. The articles inside the organization’s fascist National Vanguard magazine frequently quote from the works of Darwin and other ideologues of Social Darwinism. One can find similar statements, Darwinist comments, and propaganda defending deviant pagan culture against the divine religions in the publications and web sites of other fascist organizations.

Put briefly, fascist racism which was born with the re-awakening of pagan culture and the theory of naturalistic evolution in the 19th century, continues to grow in the 21st century, based on the same fundamental notions.

Both the eugenical murders, which were propagated by Ernst Haeckel and performed by the Nazis, and the Nazi mass murders of war years had a common philosophical ground: The idea that humans are mere animals and there is a perpetual conflict among their races. Nazis did not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of children for this cruel idea.

An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional. The decision to end a pregnancy is very personal. If you are thinking of having an abortion, most healthcare providers advise counseling….^`